System and method for establishing identity of a speaker

ABSTRACT

A system for establishing an identity of a speaker including a computerized system which includes at least two voice authentication algorithms. Each of the at least two voice authentication algorithms is different from one another and serves for independently analyzing a voice of the speaker for obtaining an independent positive or negative authentication of the voice by each of the algorithms. If every one of the algorithms provide positive authentication, the speaker is positively identified, whereas, if at least one of the algorithms provides negative authentication, the speaker is negatively identified.

FIELD AND BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to a system and method for establishing apositive or negative identity of a speaker and, more particularly, to asystem and method which employ at least two independent and differentvoice authentication algorithms for establishing such identity.

There are a large number of applications in which frequent access ofusers into a system having high security requirements is involved. Suchapplications include, but are not limited to, financial services such asstock trade confirmation and implementation, bank account inquires andwire fund transfers, Internet based electronic commerce, computernetworks, safes, homes, doors, elevators, cars and other high-valueinstallations, all are referred to herein in the specification andclaims section below as "secured-system(s)".

Currently available physical token authentication devices which arefrequently used for identifying an individual, such as crypto cards orlimited access cards, has a problem of low security protection, sincesuch cards can be lost, stolen, loaned to an unauthorized individualand/or duplicated.

Another and more sophisticated approach for authentication, which isused to provide higher security protection, is known in the art asbiometric authentication. Biometric authentication involvesidentification via authentication of unique body characteristics, suchas, fingerprints, retinal scans, facial recognition and voice patternauthentication.

Please note that, as used herein and in the art of voice analysis, voicepattern authentication differs from voice pattern recognition. In voicepattern recognition the speaker utters a phrase (e.g., a word) and thesystem determines the spoken word by selecting from a pre-definedvocabulary. Therefore voice recognition provides for the ability torecognize a spoken phrase and not the identity of the speaker.

Retinal scanning is based on the fact that retinal blood vessel patternsare unique and do not change over lifetime. Although this featureprovides high degree of security, retinal scanning has limitations sinceit is expensive and requires complicated hardware and software forimplementation.

Finger printing and facial recognition also requires expensive andcomplicated hardware and software for implementation.

Voice verification, which is also known as voice authentication, voicepattern authentication, speaker identity verification and voice print,is used to provide the speaker identification. The terms voiceverification and voice authentication are interchangeably usedhereinbelow. Techniques of voice verification have been extensivelydescribed in U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,502,759; 5,499,288; 5,414,755; 5,365,574;5,297,194; 5,216,720; 5,142,565; 5,127,043; 5,054,083; 5,023,901;4,468,204 and 4,100,370, all of which are incorporated by reference asif fully set forth herein. These patents describe numerous methods forvoice verification.

Voice authentication seeks to identify the speaker based solely on thespoken utterance. For example, a speaker's presumed identity may beverified using a feature extraction and pattern matching algorithms,wherein pattern matching is performed between features of a digitizedincoming voice print and those of previously stored reference samples.Features used for speech processing involve, for example, pitchfrequency, power spectrum values, spectrum coefficients and linearpredictive coding, see B. S. Atal (1976) Automatic recognition ofspeakers from their voice. Proc. IEEE, Vol. 64, pp. 460-475, which isincorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.

Alternative techniques for voice identification include, but are notlimited to, neural network processing, comparison of a voice patternwith a reference set, password verification using, selectivelyadjustable signal thresholds, and simultaneous voice recognition andverification.

State-of-the-art feature classification techniques are described in S.Furui (1991) Speaker dependent--feature extraction, recognition andprocessing techniques. Speech communications, Vol. 10, pp. 505-520,which is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.

Text-dependent speaker recognition methods rely on analysis ofpredetermined utterance, whereas text-independent methods do not rely onany specific spoken text. In both case, however, a classifier producesthe speaker's representing metrics which is thereafter compared with apreselected threshold. If the speaker's representing metrics falls belowthe threshold the speaker identity is confirmed and if not, the speakeris declared an impostor.

The relatively low performance of voice verification technology has beenone main reason for its cautious entry into the marketplace. The "EqualError Rate" (EER) is a calculation algorithm which involves twoparameters: false acceptance (wrong access grant) and false rejection(allowed access denial), both varying according the degree of securedaccess required, however, as shown below, exhibit a tradeofftherebetween. State-of-the-art voice verification algorithms (eithertext-dependent or text-independent) have EER values of about 2%.

By varying the threshold for false rejection errors, false acceptanceerrors are changing as graphically depicted in FIG. 1 of J. Guavain, L.Lamel and B. Prouts (March, 1995) LIMSI 1995 scientific report, which isincorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. In this Figurepresented are five plots which correlate between false rejection rates(abscissa) and the resulting false acceptance rates for voiceverification algorithms characterized by EER values of 9.0%, 8.3%, 5.1%,4.4% and 3.5%. As mentioned above there is a tradeoff between falserejection and false acceptance rates, which renders all plotshyperbolic, wherein plots associated with lower EER values fall closerto the axes.

Thus, by setting the system for too low false rejection rate, the rateof false acceptance becomes too high and vice versa.

Various techniques for voice-based security systems are described inU.S. Pat. Nos. 5,265,191; 5,245,694; 4,864,642; 4,865,072; 4,821,027;4,797,672; 4,590,604; 4,534,056; 4,020,285; 4,013,837; 3,991,271; all ofwhich are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. Thesepatents describe implementation of various voice-security systems fordifferent applications, such as telephone networks, computer networks,cars and elevators.

However, none of these techniques provides the required level ofperformance, since when a low rate of false rejection is set, the rateof false acceptance becomes unacceptably high and vice versa.

It has been proposed that speaker verification must have false rejectionin the range of 1% and false acceptance in the range of 0.1% in order tobe accepted in the market.

There is thus a widely recognized need for, and it would be highlyadvantageous to have a more reliable and secured voice authenticationsystem, having improved false acceptance and rejection rates.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

According to the present invention there is provided a system and methodfor establishing an identity of a speaker via at least two differentvoice authentication algorithms.

According to further features in preferred embodiments of the inventiondescribed below, the method comprising the steps of (a) providing acomputerized system employing at least two voice authenticationalgorithms, each of the at least two voice authentication algorithmsbeing different from one another; and (b) independently analyzing avoice of the speaker by each of the at least two voice authenticationalgorithms for obtaining an independent positive or negativeauthentication of the voice by each of the at least two algorithms;wherein if every one of the at least two voice authentication algorithmsprovide a positive authentication, the speaker is positively identified,whereas, if at least one of the at least two voice authenticationalgorithms provides negative authentication, the speaker is negativelyidentified.

According to further features in preferred embodiments of the inventiondescribed below, the system comprising a computerized system includingat least two voice authentication algorithms, each of the at least twovoice authentication algorithms being different from one another andserving for independently analyzing a voice of the speaker for obtainingan independent positive or negative authentication of the voice by eachof the at least two algorithms, wherein if every one of the at least twovoice authentication algorithms provide a positive authentication, thespeaker is positively identified, whereas, if at least one of the atleast two voice authentication algorithms provides negativeauthentication, the speaker is negatively identified.

According to still further features in the described preferredembodiments each of the voice authentication algorithms is independentlyselected from the group consisting of text-dependent algorithms andtext-independent algorithms.

According to still further features in the described preferredembodiments each of the voice authentication algorithms is independentlyselected from the group consisting of feature extraction followed bypattern matching algorithms, neural network voice authenticationalgorithms, Dynamic Time Warping (DTW) algorithm, Hidden Markov Model(HMM) algorithm and vector quantization (VQ) algorithm.

According to still further features in the described preferredembodiments a false rejection threshold of each of the at least twoalgorithms is set to a level below 0.5%.

According to still further features in the described preferredembodiments the false rejection threshold of each of the at least twoalgorithms is set to about 0.3% or 0.1%.

According to still further features in the described preferredembodiments the voice of the speaker is accepted for analysis by thecomputerized system via a remote communication mode.

According to still further features in the described preferredembodiments the remote communication mode is selected from the groupconsisting of wire telephone communication, cellular telephonecommunication, computer phone communication (e.g., Internet), and radiocommunication.

According to still further features in the described preferredembodiments the computerized system includes at least two hardwareinstallations, each of the at least two hardware installations servesfor actuating one of the at least two voice authentication algorithms.

According to still further features in the described preferredembodiments the at least two hardware installations are remote from oneanother.

According to still further features in the described preferredembodiments at least one of the at least two hardware installations isimplemented in a secured-system, and at least another one of the atleast two hardware installations is implemented in a securing-center,the at least one hardware installation implemented in thesecuring-center communicates with the at least one hardware installationimplemented in the secured-system, such that all positive or negativeidentification data is established in the secured-system.

According to still further features in the described preferredembodiments the computerized system further includes a voice recognitionalgorithm for recognizing verbal data spoken by the speaker forpositively or negatively recognizing the verbal data, and if thepositive identity has been established, positively or negativelycorrelating between at least some of the verbal data and the speaker.

According to still further features in the described preferredembodiments the verbal data includes a spoken phrase selected from thegroup consisting of a name, an identification number, and a request.

According to still further features in the described preferredembodiments the at least two voice authentication algorithms include afirst voice authentication algorithm and a plurality of identical secondvoice authentication algorithms, the first voice authenticationalgorithm is implemented in a security-center, whereas the plurality ofsecond voice authentication algorithms are implemented in a plurality ofsecured-systems, the security-center communicates with each of theplurality of secured-systems.

The present invention successfully addresses the shortcomings of thepresently known configurations by using at least two different voiceauthentication algorithms in synergism for more reliable and moreefficient voice authentication.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The invention herein described, by way of example only, with referenceto the accompanying drawings, wherein:

FIG. 1 is a block diagram demonstrating a prior art voice authenticationsecured-system access control concept;

FIG. 2 is a block diagram demonstrating a system for establishing apositive or negative identity of a speaker according to the presentinvention;

FIG. 3 is a black box diagram of a system according to the presentinvention, showing the relations between the speaker the security centerand several secured systems according to the present invention;

FIG. 4 is a black box diagram showing the process of voice analysis inthe security center according to an embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 5 is a black box diagram showing the process of a second voiceanalysis according to an embodiment of the present invention; and

FIG. 6 is a black box diagram showing the process of establishing finalspeaker identification according to an embodiment of the presentinvention.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

The present invention is of a system and method for establishing apositive or negative identity of a speaker which employ at least twodifferent voice authentication devices and which can be used forsupervising a controlled access into a secured-system. Specifically, thepresent invention can be used to provide voice authenticationcharacterized by exceptionally low false-acceptance and lowfalse-rejection rates.

As used herein the term "secured-system" refers to any system, device,etc., which allows access or use for authorized individuals only, whichare to be positively authenticated or identified each time one of themseeks access or use of the system or device. Few examples ofsecured-systems are given in the Background section above.

The principles and operation of a system and method for voiceauthentication according to the present invention may be betterunderstood with reference to the drawings and accompanying descriptions.

Referring now to the drawings, FIG. 1 illustrates the basic concept of aprior art voice authentication system used for controlling an access toa secured-system.

A speaker, 20, communicates, either simultaneously or sequentially, witha secured-system 22 and a security-center 24. The voice of speaker 20 isanalyzed for authentication by security-center 24, and if authenticationis positively established by security-center 24, a communication commandis transmitted therefrom to secured-system 22, positive identification(ID) of speaker 20, as indicated by 26, is established, and access ofspeaker 20 to secured-system 22 is allowed.

The prior art system of FIG. 1 employs a single voice authenticationalgorithm. As such, this system suffers the above described tradeoffbetween false-acceptance and false-rejection rates, resulting in toohigh false-acceptance and/or too high false-rejection rates, whichrender the system non-secured and/or non-efficient, respectively.

The present invention is a system and method for establishing anidentity of a speaker via at least two different voice authenticationalgorithms. Selecting the voice authentication algorithms significantlydifferent from one another (e.g., text-dependent and text-independentalgorithms) ensures that the algorithms are statistically not fullycorrelated with one another, with respect to false-acceptance andfalse-rejection events, i.e., r<1.0, wherein "r" is a statisticalcorrelation coefficient.

Assume that two different voice authentication algorithms are completelydecorrelated (i.e., r=0) and that the false rejection threshold of eachof the algorithms is set to a low value, say 0.5%, then, according tothe tradeoff rule, and as predicted by FIG. 1 of J. Guavain, L. Lameland B. Prouts (March, 1995) LIMSI 1995 scientific report the falseacceptance rate for each of the algorithms is expected to beexceptionally high, in the order of 8% in this case.

However, if positive identity is established only if both algorithmspositively authenticate the speaker, then the combined false acceptanceis expected to be (8%)², or 0.6%, whereas the combined false rejectionis expected to be 0.5%×2, or 1%.

The expected value of the combined false acceptance is expected toincrease and the expected value of the false rejection is expected todecrease as the degree of correlation between the algorithms increases,such that if full correlation is experienced (i.e., r=1.0), the combinedvalues of the example given are reset at 0.5% and 8%.

Please note that the best EER value characterized the algorithmsemployed by B. Prouts was 3.5%. Extrapolating the plots of B. Prouts tosimilarly represent an algorithm with EER value of 2% (which is, atpresent, the state-of-the-art) one may choose to set false rejection at0.3%, then false acceptance falls in the order of 4.6%, to obtain acombined false acceptance of 0.2% and a combined false rejection of0.6%.

Thus, the concept of "different algorithms" as used herein in thespecification and in the claims section below refers to algorithmshaving a correlation of r<1.0, preferably r<about 0.9, more preferablyr<about 0.8, most preferably r<about 0.7, very most preferably r<about0.6, best is if r ranges between about 0.0 and about 0.5, ultimately, rranges between 0.0 and 0.2. For example, a text-dependent algorithmknown as Dynamic Time Warping (DTW) and a text-independent algorithmknown as vector quantization (VQ) have been shown to have correlation ofr=0.74.

With reference now to FIG. 2, presented is a system for establishing anidentity of a speaker according to the present invention, which isreferred to hereinbelow as system 50.

Thus, system 50 includes a computerized system 52, which includes atleast two voice authentication algorithms 54, two are shown and aremarked 54a and 54b.

Algorithms 54 are selected different from one another, and each servesfor independently analyzing a voice of the speaker, for obtaining anindependent positive or negative authentication of the voice by each. Ifevery one of algorithms 54 provide a positive authentication, thespeaker is positively identified, whereas, if at least one of algorithms54 provides negative authentication, the speaker is negativelyidentified (i.e., identified as an impostor).

Both text-dependent and text-independent voice authentication algorithmsmay be employed. Examples include feature extraction followed by patternmatching algorithms, as described, for example, in U.S. Pat. No.5,666,466, neural network voice authentication algorithms, as described,for example, in U.S. Pat. No. 5,461,697, Dynamic Time Warping (DTW)algorithm, as described, for example, in U.S. Pat. No. 5,625,747, HiddenMarkov Model (HMM) algorithm, as described, for example, in U.S. Pat.No. 5,526,465, and vector quantization (VQ) algorithm, as described, forexample, in U.S. Pat. No. 5,640,490. All patents cited are incorporatedby reference as if fully set forth herein.

According to a preferred embodiment of the present invention a falserejection threshold of each of algorithms 54 is set to a level below orequals 0.5%, preferably below or equals 0.4%, more preferably below orequals 0.3%, most preferably below or equals 0.2% or equals about 0.1%.

Depending on the application, the voice of the speaker may be directlyaccepted by system 52, alternatively the voice of the speaker may beaccepted by system 52 via a remote communication mode.

Thus, according to a preferred embodiment, the voice of the speaker isaccepted for analysis by computerized system 52 via a remotecommunication mode 56. Remote communication mode 56 may, for example, bewire or cellular telephone communication modes, computer phonecommunication mode (e.g., Internet or Intranet) or a radio communicationmode. These communication modes are symbolized in FIG. 2 by a universaltelephone symbol, which is communicating, as indicated by the brokenlines, with at least one receiver 58 (two are shown, indicated 58a and58b) implemented in computerized system 52.

According to yet another preferred embodiment of the present invention,computerized system 52 includes at least two hardware installations 60(two, 60a and 60b, are shown), each of installations 60 serves foractuating one of voice authentication algorithms 54. Hardwareinstallations 60 may be of any type, including, but not limited to, apersonal computer (PC) platform or an equivalent, a dedicated board in acomputer, etc. Hardware installations 60 may be remote from one another.As used herein "remote" refers to a situation wherein installations 60communicate thereamongst via a remote communication medium.

In one application of the present invention at least one of hardwareinstallations 60, say 60a, is implemented in a secured-system 62,whereas at least another one of hardware installations 60, say 60b, isimplemented in a securing-center 64. In a preferred embodiment hardwareinstallation 60b which is implemented in securing-center 64 communicateswith hardware installation 60a which implemented in secured-system 62,such that all positive or negative identification data of the speaker iseventually established in secured-system 62.

The term "securing-center" as used herein in the specification and inthe claims section below refers to computer system which serves foractuating at least one voice authentication algorithm, and thereforeserves part of the process of positively or negatively identifying thespeaker.

According to a preferred embodiment of the invention, computerizedsystem 52 further includes a voice recognition algorithm 66. Algorithm66 serves for recognizing verbal data spoken by the speaker (as opposedto identifying the speaker by his voice utterance) and thereby tooperate secured-system 62. Algorithm 66 preferably further serves forpositively or negatively recognizing the verbal data, and if thepositive identity has been established via algorithms 54, as describedabove, positively or negatively correlating between at least some of theverbal data and the authenticated speaker, where only if suchcorrelation is positive, the speaker gains access to secured-system 66.

The verbal data spoken by the speaker may include any spoken phrase (atleast one word), such as, but not limited to, a name, an identificationnumber, and a request.

In a preferred embodiment of the invention a single security-center 64having one voice authentication algorithm 54 implemented thereincommunicates with a plurality of secured-systems 62, each of whichhaving a different (second) voice authentication algorithm 54, such thata speaker can choose to access any one or a subset of the plurality ofsecured-systems 62 if authenticated.

EXAMPLE

Reference is now made to the following example, which together with theabove descriptions, illustrate the invention in a non limiting fashion.

FIGS. 3-6 describe a preferred embodiment of the system and methodaccording to the present invention.

Thus, as shown in FIG. 3, using his voice alone or in combination with acommunication device, such as, but not limited to, a wire telephone, acellular wireless telephone, a computer phone, a transmitter (e.g.,radio transmitter), or any other remote communication medium, a user,such as speaker 120, communicates with a security-center 124 and one ormore secured-systems 122, such as, but not limited to, a computernetwork (secured-system No. 1), a voice mail system (secured-system No.2) and/or a bank's computer system (secured-system No. N).

In a preferred embodiment the speaker uses a telephone communicationmode, whereas all secured-systems 122 and security-center 124 have anidentical telephone number, or the same frequency and modulation in caseradio communication mode is employed. In any case, preferably the usersimultaneously communicates with secured-systems 122 and security-center124. In a preferred embodiment of the invention, for the purpose of thevoice verification or authentication procedure, each of secured-systems122 includes only a receiver 126, yet is devoid of a transmitter.

FIG. 4 described the next step in the process. Security-center 124performs a voice analysis of the incoming voice, using, for example, (i)any prior art algorithm of voice authentication 130 and (ii) aconventional verbal recognition algorithm 132 which includes, forexample, verbal identification of the required secured-system 122 (No.1, 2, . . . , or N) access code (which also forms a request), a passwordand the social security number of speaker 120. The false rejectionthreshold is set to a low level, say, below 0.5%, preferably about 0.3%,which renders the false acceptance level in the order of 4.6%.

After positive identification of the incoming voice is established,security-center 124 acknowledges the speaker identification 134 by, forexample, transmitting an audio pitch 136. Audio pitch 136 is receivedboth by speaker 120 and by the specific secured-system 122 (e.g.,according to the system access code used by speaker 120).

FIG. 5 describes what follows. Security-center 124, or preferablysecured-system 122, performs voice authentication of the incoming voiceusing a second voice authentication algorithm 138, which is differentfrom voice authentication algorithm 130 used by security-center 124, asdescribed above with respect to FIG. 4.

For example, voice authentication algorithm 138 may be a neural networkvoice authentication algorithm, as, for example, described in U.S. Pat.No. 5,461,697.

Again, the false rejection threshold is set to a low level, say below0.5%, preferably 0.3 or 0.1%. Following the above rational andcalculations, as a result, for algorithms having EER value of about 2%,the false acceptance level (e.g., for 0.3%) falls in the order of 4.6%.

In a preferred embodiment of the invention security-center 124 andsecured-system 122 are physically removed. Since the process ofidentification in security-center 124 prolongs some pre-selected timeinterval, activation of the simultaneous voice verification insecured-system 122 occurs at t=ΔT after the receipt of audio pitch 136at secured-system 122. This time delay ensures that no identificationwill occur before the acknowledgment from security-center 122 has beenreceived.

As shown in FIG. 6, final speaker identification 140 is established onlywhen identification 142a and 142b is established by both security system124 and secured-system 122, which results in accessibility of thespeaker to secured-system 122.

Thus, only if both security-center 124 and secured-system 122 haveestablished positive voice verification, the speaker has been positivelyidentified and the process has been positively completed and access tosecured-system 122 is, therefore, allowed, as indicated by 144.

If one of the systems 122 and 124 fails to verify the speaker's voice,the process has not been positively completed and access tosecured-system 122 is, therefore, denied.

While the invention has been described with respect to a limited numberof embodiments, it will be appreciated that many variations,modifications and other applications of the invention may be made.

What is claimed is:
 1. A method for establishing an identity of aspeaker comprising the steps of:(a) providing a computerized systemincluding at least two hardware installations employing at least twovoice authentication algorithms, each of said at least two voiceauthentication algorithms being different from one another, each of saidat least two hardware installations being for actuating one of said atleast two voice authentication algorithms; and (b) independentlyanalyzing a voice of the speaker by each of said at least two voiceauthentication algorithms for obtaining an independent positive ornegative authentication of the voice by each of said at least twoalgorithms;wherein if every one of said at least two voiceauthentication algorithms provide a positive authentication, the speakeris positively identified, whereas, if at least one of said at least twovoice authentication algorithms provides negative authentication, thespeaker is negatively identified, whereas at least one of said at leasttwo hardware installations is implemented in a secured-system, and atleast another one of said at least two hardware installations isimplemented in a securing-center, said at least one hardwareinstallation implemented in said securing-center communicates with saidat least one hardware installation implemented in said secured-system,such that all positive or negative identification data is established insaid secured-system.
 2. The method of claim 1, wherein each of saidvoice authentication algorithms is independently selected from the groupconsisting of text-dependent algorithms and text-independent algorithms.3. The method of claim 2, wherein each of said voice authenticationalgorithms is independently selected from the group consisting offeature extraction followed by pattern matching algorithms, neuralnetwork voice authentication algorithms, Dynamic Time Warping algorithm,Hidden Markov Model algorithm and vector quantization algorithm.
 4. Themethod of claim 1, wherein a false rejection threshold of each of saidat least two algorithms is set to a level below 0.5%.
 5. The method ofclaim 4, wherein said false rejection threshold of each of said at leasttwo algorithms is set to about 0.3%.
 6. The method of claim 1, whereinthe voice of the speaker is accepted for analysis by said computerizedsystem via a remote communication mode.
 7. The method of claim 6,wherein said remote communication mode is selected from the groupconsisting of wire telephone communication, cellular telephonecommunication, computer phone communication and radio communication. 8.The method of claim 1, wherein said at least two hardware installationsare remote from one another.
 9. The method of claim 1, wherein saidcomputerized system further includes a voice recognition algorithm forrecognizing verbal data spoken by said speaker.
 10. The method of claim9, wherein said verbal data includes a spoken phrase selected from thegroup consisting of a name, an identification number, and a request. 11.The method of claim 1, wherein said computerized system further includesa voice recognition algorithm for recognizing verbal data spoken by saidspeaker, the method further comprising the steps of positively ornegatively recognizing said verbal data, and if said positive identityhas been established, positively or negatively correlating between atleast some of said verbal data and said speaker.
 12. A method forestablishing an identity of a speaker comprising the steps of:(a)providing a computerized system employing at least two voiceauthentication algorithms, each of said at least two voiceauthentication algorithms being different from one another; and (b)independently analyzing a voice of the speaker by each of said at leasttwo voice authentication algorithms for obtaining an independentpositive or negative authentication of the voice by each of said atleast two algorithms;wherein if every one of said at least two voiceauthentication algorithms provide a positive authentication, the speakeris positively identified, whereas, if at least one of said at least twovoice authentication algorithms provides negative authentication, thespeaker is negatively identified, whereas said at least two voiceauthentication algorithms include a first voice authentication algorithmand a plurality of identical second voice authentication algorithms,said first voice authentication algorithm is implemented in asecurity-center, whereas said plurality of second voice authenticationalgorithms are implemented in a plurality of secured-systems, saidsecurity-center communicates with each of said plurality ofsecured-systems.
 13. A system for establishing an identity of a speakercomprising a computerized system including at least two hardwareinstallations for actuating at least two voice authenticationalgorithms, each of said at least two hardware installations serves foractuating one of said at least two voice authentication algorithms, eachof said at least two voice authentication algorithms being differentfrom one another and serving for independently analyzing a voice of thespeaker for obtaining an independent positive or negative authenticationof the voice by each of said at least two algorithms, wherein if everyone of said at least two voice authentication algorithms provide apositive authentication, the speaker is positively identified, whereas,if at least one of said at least two voice authentication algorithmsprovides negative authentication, the speaker is negatively identified,at least one of said at least two hardware installations is implementedin a secured-system, and at least another one of said at least twohardware installations is implemented in a securing-center, said atleast one hardware installation implemented in said securing-centercommunicates with said at least one hardware installation implemented insaid secured-system, such that all positive or negative identificationdata is established in said secured-system.
 14. The method of claim 13,wherein each of said voice authentication algorithms is independentlyselected from the group consisting of text-dependent algorithms andtext-independent algorithms.
 15. The method of claim 14, wherein each ofsaid voice authentication algorithms is independently selected from thegroup consisting of feature extraction followed by pattern matchingalgorithms, neural network voice authentication algorithms, Dynamic TimeWarping algorithm, Hidden Markov Model algorithm and vector quantizationalgorithm.
 16. The system of claim 13, wherein a false rejectionthreshold of each of said at least two algorithms is set to a levelbelow 0.5%.
 17. The system of claim 16, wherein said false rejectionthreshold of each of said at least two algorithms is set to about 0.3%.18. The system of claim 13, wherein the voice of the speaker is acceptedfor analysis by said computerized system via a remote communicationmode.
 19. The system of claim 18, wherein said remote communication modeis selected from the group consisting of wire telephone communication,cellular telephone communication, computer phone communication and radiocommunication.
 20. The system of claim 13, wherein said at least twohardware installations are remote from one another.
 21. The system ofclaim 13, wherein said computerized system further includes a voicerecognition algorithm for recognizing verbal data spoken by saidspeaker.
 22. The system of claim 13, wherein said computerized systemfurther includes a voice recognition algorithm for recognizing verbaldata spoken by said speaker for positively or negatively recognizingsaid verbal data, and if said positive identity has been established,positively or negatively correlating between at least some of saidverbal data and said speaker.
 23. The system of claim 22, wherein saidverbal data includes a spoken phrase selected from the group consistingof a name, an identification number, and a request.
 24. A system forestablishing an identity of a speaker comprising a computerized systemincluding at least two voice authentication algorithms, each of said atleast two voice authentication algorithms being different from oneanother and serving for independently analyzing a voice of the speakerfor obtaining an independent positive or negative authentication of thevoice by each of said at least two algorithms, wherein if every one ofsaid at least two voice authentication algorithms provide a positiveauthentication, the speaker is positively identified, whereas, if atleast one of said at least two voice authentication algorithms providesnegative authentication, the speaker is negatively identified, said atleast two voice authentication algorithms include a first voiceauthentication algorithm and a plurality of identical second voiceauthentication algorithms, said first voice authentication algorithm isimplemented in a security-center, whereas said plurality of second voiceauthentication algorithms are implemented in a plurality ofsecured-systems, said security-center communicates with each of saidplurality of secured-systems.